Watching this has been an all around wonderful experience, and I will be re-watching it later to get a more permanent grasp of the arguments made and concepts addressed, thank you for your hard work.
I think a big portion of accepting ontological relativism has to do with phenomena regarding psychological experience. Ontological relativity can allow for alternative ontological worlds in which persons can have psychological experiences that appear to be related first and foremost to the perceptual level (barring the empirical kind of perception). It wouldn't make much sense to entertain people who he has mostly already dealt with. It does make sense to allow some room for those who appear ontologically relative without claims to any of these fields, to exist. Phenomenological psychology perhaps? I don't think content is a claim about the world in the objective sense, rather it is a claim about the world in a different sense. This sense is one in which the subject-object distinction is dissolved. For many ontologists, it's in that dissolution that the world is. There are some otologists who call this a moral kind of realm. I think this is consistent with everything you have presented in the videos so far. It would be very difficult to pick up on why it's important to leave that gap without having experience with psych wards and with people who have altered perceptions in general. O'Grady may be leaving a gap for psychology to figure its shit out. Hopefully that's somewhat helpful.
